Their lack of foresight was really their downfall, and the crux at the heart of this story. If they did it, how many other labs do it too, and how much research is suspect? Ultimately, Cliff's story and the controversy surrounding it is a study in ethics, and that's the real issue for us here at the Globe. Sandy and Marion knew the results were preliminary, but they chose to release them to Nature anyway. That was unethical and unprofessional. Marion fought against it, but Sandy won out with his attitude they had to release to get a lock on the research. He tells Marion, "We can't afford to wait six months for the review. In the meantime, everyone and his brother is going to try this" (Goodman 71). It is Sandy's need for attention and publicity that helps fuel the situation, and he should be held accountable for the results. Cliff's research may have been sloppy, but a review would have indicated that, and created far less controversy as a result.

The morality of the researchers must be questioned, as well. Cliff seems to be a tortured researcher, at best. He even admits to himself that he's sloppy, and attempts to rectify that by keeping better records as the experiments continue. However, he cannot admit, even to himself, that he might have discounted relevant data in his search for a cure, and so, he cannot admit it to anyone else, either. That is the "chaff" that floated off into space and became the center of the controversy. In the end, everyone involved...

Sandy in fighting for results when they were premature, Marion in allowing herself to be persuaded they were right, Cliff for fudging the data, and Robin, for not sticking to her guns sooner, and questioning the science behind the research. It makes you question the integrity of the scientific community, one that seems more interested in attracting commercial consideration from mega-scientists like Steven Hawking, rather than in producing coherent and relevant results that truly will stun the scientific and medical communities. Scientists need to be moral and ethical because they hold our future in our hands, and they should never lose sight of that.
There's the rest of the story, the underlying issues that face scientists and researchers every day. The case against Cliff is convoluted and multi-faceted. As reporters note, "Robin's case against Cliff might as well have been a case against the status quo, an argument against the natural bumps and jolts of the creative process" (Goodman 203). it's pretty hard to challenge creativity, but it's not hard to challenge creativity in the research community. The people suffer when scientists act unethically, because the people want to believe the results, and that they'll benefit from them, while at least some scientists are as concerned about the notoriety as they are about the research.